Awards

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

We made three fundamental mistakes in our dealings with Islam. First, we assumed that the only politically acceptable answer was also the right answer. This is the most common mistake that politicians make.

Second, we established a construct of a moderate and extreme Islam that reflected how we saw it from the outside. This construct had no theological relationship to any actual belief or movement within Islam. Had we made the division into modern and fundamentalist, we would at least have been using words that meant something. Instead we used moderate and extreme in a military sense to mean hostile and friendly or neutral. But as a Vietnam era president and military command should have known, in a guerrilla war not everyone who isn't shooting at you is friendly or even neutral.

Our construct was black and white with few shades of gray. But the Muslim world is all shades of gray. The absolute choice we wanted them to make, "you're either with us or with the terrorists", was foreign to their culture and their way of life. Multiple layers of contradictory relationships and alliances are the norm in the region. You expect to betray and be betrayed, much as you expect to cheat and be cheated while bartering for a carpet at the souk. In a region where coalitions of Fascists, Communists and Islamists are doable, contradictions don't exist, all alliances are expedient and built on an expected betrayal. The rise of Islam itself was built on broken peace treaties. So it is no wonder then that in response to Bush's call, they chose both us and the terrorists. Appeasing America and the Islamists at the same time was their version of the politically safe middle ground, the path of least resistance and the only acceptable option.

And the more we prattled about the peacefulness of Islam, the more we looked like we could be easily appeased with a few gestures. And so it was the Islamists who were more threatening, who got the benefit of of their appeasement. We had asked Muslim countries for an alliance with no mixed allegiances, in a region where only kin could ask or count on such an arrangement. And we are not their kin, neither by blood and certainly not by religion. While we insisted that all people were the same, this was a statement of our belief, not theirs. And they did not believe that we believed it either.

Rather than learning what the Muslim world was, we had already decided what we wanted it to be. But our perspective was a foreign one. They might pander to it, but they would never dictate their own beliefs by it. We might talk of a moderate or extreme Islam, but that is our idea, not theirs. There is more than one form of Islam, they are not defined by their extremism or moderation. Nor by their approach toward violence. No more than we are.

Muslim theology is violent, because violence has always been a tool of its expansion. When we ask Muslims to disassociate themselves from violence, we are really asking them to disassociate themselves from Islam. And this they will not do. They will contextually condemn some acts of terror, depending on the identity of the perpetrators and the targets, and the impact of the acts on the nation and ideology of the Muslim or Muslims in question. But they will dub other acts of terrorist as valid resistance. The differences are not moral, but contextual.

The Muslim world is a gray zone full of alliances written on sand where every principle can be bent at need, but is dominated by a religion that pretends to be morally absolute. This is an inherent contradiction. And like most moral conflicts it is resolved through self-deception. Our absolute standards have no meaning when applied to the Muslim world. They have moral force, but little practical relevance.

Islamic moderation is not theology, but pragmatism. Its fanatics are the most trustworthy, and its pragmatists the least trustworthy. We have put our faith in the moderation of the pragmatists, but confusing pragmatism with moderate beliefs, morals or friendship is no better than lapping at the sand of a mirage and calling it water.

Our third and final mistake was to believe that we held all or most of the cards, and were free to give away as many of them as we wanted to. But the more we thought we were calling the shots, the more we were shot at. Because we were not in control. The political, religious and armed conflicts we were engaged in were being fought on their terms, not ours. They began the war. They decided when to initiate the violence or call a halt to it. Their violence set the tone, we tried to defuse it. Our attempts to promote moderation in the Muslim world were reactive. It is the bomber who has the initiative once he chooses to act. And so we tried to teach the bombers not to bomb, while the bombers taught us to appease them.

When a psychiatrist rewards rats for finishing a maze, is it the psychiatrist who is training the rats to finish mazes, or the rats who are training him to give them cheese. The answer to that question hinges on who controls the experiment. While we thought that we were experimenting on the Muslim world to make them more moderate, they were actually experimenting on us to teach us to appease them.

While we were trying to force the Muslim world into our maze with two openings, one labeled 'extreme' and one labeled 'moderate', they were really moving us into their meta-maze with two openings, 'death' or 'appeasement'. Our plan was to keep forcing them to choose the moderate openings in order to moderate them and break them of any attachment to terrorism. But our chief method for moving them there was appeasement. Once we got bogged down in Iraq, appeasement became our only method. While we thought that we were leading them to the moderate opening in our maze by appeasing them, they were leading us to the appeasement opening in their maze.

The rats turned out to be training the psychiatrist and they have done an excellent job of it. The Muslim world is more Anti-American than it was 10 years ago, while we are more pro-Muslim. Each time they finish the moderate maze and assure us how peaceful Islam is, we gift them with the cheese of appeasement. Rather than teaching them to be moderate using the reward of our appeasement, they have taught us to appease them using the reward of their faked moderation. Like tourists at the souk, we have been cheated badly by laying out good money for a fake rug. But worse than that we have been turned into rats in their maze, rushing to appease them in the hopes that they will reward us by being moderate.

Pavlov demonstrated that once you teach dogs to associate a ringing bell with a meal, they will salivate when you ring the bell even when there is no food. So too rats will keep running the maze even when there is no cheese. So too governments continue appeasing Islam, even when the promised cheese of moderation fails to yield any significant changes on the ground. A plot broken up here or there. Or even a mosque that opens its doors to the FBI or Scotland Yard is enough for them. But is it the FBI that is teaching Muslims to be more cooperative, or Muslims who are teaching the FBI to be more accommodating. Who is the psychiatrist and who is the rat?

By initiating violence, the Muslim world turned us into their rats. We reacted to their stimuli as we desperately looked for a way out of their maze of violence. Except when we took the initiative by attacking them-- the locus of control was always in their hands. And even when we did take their initiative, it was still in response to their violence. We were still making war on their terms. Trying to work with them, reform them, reach them and appease them. We were running the maze and still are. Starving to death still searching for the cheese which isn't there.

All this drives the flywheel of appeasement round and round. The more we turn it, the worse the violence becomes. The capacity for terrorism made Muslims prominent. They have become ticking time bombs we are driven to defuse. We shower the Muslim world with respect, money, political power and every possible thing that might keep them from killing us. It is absolutely vital in the minds of our leaders that we make them like us so that they won't kill us. Which means that it actually is in their interest to kill us. Rather than rewarding them for their moderation, we are actually rewarding them for their extremism.

The more we appease them, the more violent they become. And the more we habituate ourselves to appeasement, the harder it is for us to stop. Our worst mistake in dealing with the Muslim world was to habituate ourselves to the appeasement solution. To make it a reflex action. American politicians chose it as their path of least resistance between complete surrender and all out war as their safe way through the maze. They rationalized it as a wedge strategy to split the minority of extremists who wanted a superislamic state from the majority who wanted peace and prosperity. By embracing Islam, we would reform it. The majority of Muslims would choose peace and prosperity, and ally with us to isolate the extremists. Then we would use the wedge strategy to split the extremists into the moderate extremists and the extreme extremists. Using the carrot of foreign aid and close ties to the United States and the stick of military intervention, we would force the terrorist groups and their state backers to choose either the carrot or the stick.

But it was the Muslim world which was forcing us to choose between their carrot and their stick. The carrot was a positive relationship with the Muslim world, the stick was a negative relationship. And since 2001 we have been chasing the carrot, while getting whacked over the head with the stick. Some of the politicians have realized that there is no carrot, only the stick. For these 'New Realists' avoiding the stick or at least minimizing the force of its blows has become the new carrot.

If we're good little infidels, we'll only have 5 terrorist attacks a year instead of 10. We'll have 100 rapes instead of 200 if all wear our burqas. And even that is another illusion. The Muslim world cannot control its own violence, only channel it. There is no off switch. Only pipes that they can use to funnel it our direction. They cannot offer us peace. It is not within their power. Only by directing their own violence inward could they do this. And that is obviously not in their interest. Only by forcefully demonstrating that the violence is absolutely not in their interest, will we ever put a stop to it. And to do that we would have to pose more of a threat to them, than their own people do. Appeasement is the worst possible way to go about doing that.

With our first mistake, we limited our options to one single course of action. With our second mistake, we guided that course of action based on a construct that had no relationship to the reality of the Muslim world. With our third and final mistake, that course of action was hijacked and used to manipulate our behavior, causing us to repeat the same disastrous course of action over and over again. The more we did it, the more it seemed like the only possible course of action. And our only way to check whether we were succeeding or failing was a misguided construct that could not measure what we needed it to.

In real world terms, this is equivalent to driving the wrong way, using a map from the wrong country and repeating the same course over and over again, because rather than realizing that something must be wrong, we just look at the map and assume that if we repeat the course enough times, we will reach our destination. Even when we no longer seem to know what the destination is because we have become so used to going in circles that the circle has come to seem like our destination.

Like most mistakes that are based on a process that was wrong from the beginning, we can only begin to fix it by going back to the first broken train of logic, the first error in understanding. Only then will we be able to break the loop and begin anew.

53
comments:

Could you at least find a way of having the Israeli negotiators with the PLO read this post, living in the ME they might at least get an inkling of what they are up against, with western leaders and corps diplomatique I feel you are to late to educate those in power. If you could get insight like expressed in this post into the program of any school for diplomats anywhere a few of the next generation politicians might get a head-start in their careers.

There is to my knowledge less violent Islam [Sufism] but they are not in power in the Arab world. The dealing with the Arab world [ you do not have a problem with Islamic Indonesia or Islam in India, right?] were up till now based on money and interest of the western world as much as the Arab world. The problems now are the weakness of the west and the lack of conviction in their own values.The west does not understand apparently what personal freedom and other basic values mean. If you stand for them clearly and forcefully the other side will accommodate itself.

You're slipping, Daniel. There is only one Islam, that of the Koran and the sunna. There is no higher authority. Muslims buy into it to different degrees, and may decide the same words mean different things, but there is only one Islam itself. But the differences we're talking about here are purely religious. So that means it's nothing to do with us. The parts they DO agree on, which is about 70% of it, are the politics - how to view and treat non Muslims. Here, there are no differences between the various stripes. That's all that matters for us as non-muslims.

While we in the West suffer mightily from Islam's predations, Muslims suffer both as individuals and as a culture from their acceptance of violence as normal human behavior. Moreover, I do not see the course that can rein them in, since the application of force merely teaches them what they already know.

However, as Sultan already knows, what Muslims consider strength in the ability to torture and maim under the proper circumstances, prevents them from trusting others including members of their own family constellation. It is instructive that homes in the Arab world are built more often as compounds with solid outer walls and poorly paved street. The expressions of ease and wealth are limited to the inner rooms and courts throughout Arab lands. Public works are as anathema to Arab life as the formal linguistic construct of compromise. Thus, the seeds of their destruction are built into the fabric of their lives. While this observation is true of every human system of interaction, it is clearest when observing Islam, particularly in the Arab world.

Very interesting analysis Sultan. There's no doubting also the influence of the mainstream media (particularly the BBC here in the UK), Church leaders and academics in fostering an appeasement mentality. This obviously has a relation to your point about what is politically acceptable. It took a Winston Churchill last time to turn the tide of appeasement

Love your efforts and ability to see thru the fog that has enveloped most of the world; Europe is even further down the path to destruction known as Islamization. After reading much bible prophecy, it seems more and more likely that the description of "anti-christ" and his reign matches the current desires of Islam and its future desire for a worldwide caliphate in which only Islam is recognized. If you don't want to read about the future, I can recommend : 7 Tipping Points That Saved the World by Chris and Ted Stewart. They analyze crucial turning points that prevented Islam, barbarians or communism from completely taking over the world. Fascinating revelations and you'll gain much appreciation of your freedom today. Their closing questions are haunting and perhaps prophetic:Quoting: "This book has also made the bold assertion that the existence of freedom is a miracle....For most of human history, the vast majority of people have been without any hope of freedom....Injustice fills the hearts of men. Injustice and oppression are the natural way of things. In order for freedom and democracy to survive, the injustice must be defeated. It will not simply disappear. It must be cast aside...IF the natural condition of mankind is the absence of freedom, is it possible that all humankind might one day revert back to tyranny?...Do we WANT these things? Will we still WORK to claim these blessings? Will we fight to preserve the miracle of freedom that we enjoy today? In fact, could the answer to these questions be the thing upon which the future of the entire world depends?" end quote

mindRider, the diplomatic corps is orientalist and left of center. It's been built to be that way and the system is self-perpetuating. Unfortunately.

Marlou, their idea of honor is status, not integrity. They will keep their word only to maintain their status. So they may not for example kill a guest until he walks a certain distance away from their home. It's not a moral set of values.

Anon, Sunnis and Shiites are nonetheless different. That those differences don't change their hostility to us does not mean that there is no difference.

Anon 2, yes barbarism destroys itself. It just takes civilizations down with it.

Despair..... Because there are so so many of them and each one is like a bottomless black hole entirely devoid of any moral compass or humanity. What can you say to people who murder their own children? They really have not progressed much since the days of Moloch & human sacrifice.

Anonymous: Get this through your own "pinhead": unless we adopt a more reality-based, rational attitude that supports appropriate defenses against Islamic aggression, eventually we will end up with no option BUT to "kill them all or put them in camps". It's called "war". Would it not be wiser to take off the blinders, face the implacable facts of political Islam, and start forcing them to respect the rights of others (whether they like it or think Allahudat Snackbar approves) before it comes to that?

Anonymous: Get this through your own "pinhead": unless we adopt a more reality-based, rational attitude that supports appropriate defenses against Islamic aggression, eventually we will end up with no option BUT to "kill them all or put them in camps". It's called "war". Would it not be wiser to take off the blinders, face the implacable facts of political Islam, and start forcing them to respect the rights of others (whether they like it or think Allahudat Snackbar approves) before it comes to that?

Ron: Revere Rides Again had the answer to your "what now?" Look, I’ll provide a concrete illustration of the fix we are in thanks to our pragmatic, “it’s only a religion of peace hijacked by extremists” presidents and diplomats. If you’ve ever seen “Brazil,” one of the funniest scenes is when these overbearing, bureaucratic technicians arrive at the anti-hero’s apartment to fix a plumbing problem, They don these plastic, insulated suits. The actual hero, played by Robert di Nero, reconnects the sewage lines so that the suits quickly fill up with, well, sewage and drowns the technicians. A horrible way to die. No dignity, no farewells. Just lots of gagging on feces and urine.

Except that this is what’s facing us: drowning in Islamic sewage in suits our leaders force us to wear, and if we don’t wear them, we’re “racists” or “Islamophobes” or “bigots.” Death by suffocation in the excrement that is called Islam.

6. Stop fighting wars and have the military come home and protect our borders which are left unguarded. It has been proven that many Muslim terrorists have easily crossed our borders (including weapons of mass destruction?). Hezbollah have set up operations close to our border and Hezbollah work closely with violent Mexican drug cartels.

Have the military guard our ports and check all cargo.

7. Close down all of the many Muslim terrorist training camps which are ALLOWED to operate in America.

8. Government and media must stop consulting with Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as CAIR, etc.

Maybe Daniel could do a whole article on this and come up with more stuff.

I can dream that our government would actually want to protect America.

For fans of science fiction this is very familiar territory. In that genre there are countless tales of encounters with aliens that lead to as much or more confusion and conflict.

Every once in a while a peaceful solution is found. Far more often disaster ensues. There is the middle solution, which I think Daniel is hinting at, that recognizes we will never understand them and enforce an armed truce.

" Anon, Sunnis and Shiites are nonetheless different. That those differences don't change their hostility to us does not mean that there is no difference."

You agree with me then, because that's what I said. The only thing that matters to us is how they view kafirs - and that's identical. The rest of it - whether they follow the line of Mo's family, or his colleagues, doesn't matter in the big picture.

There are several other mistakes made when dealing with Islam. Since Islam is a religion, and since it involves various humans, what that religion entails and how that religion will be lived out will greatly vary in the same way that other religions, like Christianity, will contain great variation. Looking at one form of Islam, and considering that form to be ‘Islam,’ is like looking at Roman Catholicism, and claiming that it represents Christianity (while basically ignoring the various Baptist sects, the various Methodist sects, the various Charismatic sects, the various Protestant sects in general, etc.).

The beginnings of a number of religions were violent. Mormonism’s violent beginnings were akin to Islam’s beginnings. Not just a few of the so-called Reformers in Christianity were violent, showing their bitterness against the established faith (and actually showing bitterness against their god for not doing anything to help their cause).

One of the reasons why a religious group uses violence is because that group’s members are frustrated with its own god’s inactivity and seeming powerlessness. While leaders convince followers that the will of its god is to conquer those who are keeping the faith from expanding, it really declares that the deity doesn’t have the power to work things out for himself/herself.

Whenever religious folks must defend their god, they prove the impotence of their god.

Whenever religious folks demand that the environment in which they live must conform to just one standard in order for their faith to prosper, they declare just how fragile and weak their faith is.

A strong faith can and will prosper in the most ‘anti-faith’ environment, and the followers of that strong faith will seek to do good and to benefit those outside of the faith in that environment! A weak faith will demand conformity from those outside in order to ‘feel’ justified by the deity and in order to ‘feel’ like the environment is stable enough for the faith to flourish. Since human variation is so great, however, a group with a weak faith will spend a large amount of time and effort being angry and bitter against outsiders (sometimes called ‘infidels’ when that is the wrong term, since infidelity isn’t the issue, but ‘non-fidelity’—non-faith is the issue) and with insiders who have a different view of what the deity requires.

There is always this background knowledge that the deity could do something about these folks; but no, the deity isn’t doing anything! So, members of this group feel and are taught that they must act on behalf of this deity (indeed, must be the hands and the feet of this deity), only proving that this deity either has no power to do anything without help, or that this deity’s thoughts, will and power are directed elsewhere.

The following humorous event is recorded in the Bible:

Judges 6:28 And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Baal was cast down! And the grove was cut down that was by it! And the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built. 29 And they said one to another, “Who has done this thing?” And when they enquired and asked, they said, “Gideon the son of Joash has done this thing!” 30 Then the men of the city said unto Joash, “Bring out thy son! And he shall die! For he has cast down the altar of Baal!” and, “For he has cut down the grove that was by it!” 31 And Joash said unto all that stood against him, “Will ye fight for Baal? Will ye save him? He who will fight for him, he shall be put to death while it is yet morning! If he is a god, he shall fight for himself! For one has cast down his altar!”

The same thing can be declared regarding the deity of Islam: “If he is a god, he shall fight for himself! For, unbelievers are on and in his lands!” Those who profess faith in this deity and who also act as his hands and his feet only prove the impotence of their deity; they don’t prove the depth of their faith.

Anon, they may not matter in the big picture, but they matter in the little one. Much like the differences between China and the USSR.

Carmo, thank you very much. Glad you like my writing.

Jimbob, that's an interesting point. That Islam is the most potent form of mass identity in the region, more so than nationalism, does not help that picture.

Nevertheless Islam differs in that its expansion has always hinged explicitly on armed conquest. There isn't much of a religious trajectory other than militant expansionism which is what the narrative is built around.

The West has worried about the reaction of Muslims too much. The day after 911 should've seen B52s taking to the skies of Afghanistan and like-minded nations.

Muslims have correctly calculated the West's squeamishness and "human rights" quislings would limit the West's response. Add to that the fact that Muslim immigrants have a lobby group promoting their "rights" and advocating for their "religion" awaiting them, against us.

We have lost our ruthlessness and when it comes to Islam, ruthlessness is all that will carry the day against it.

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." - C. S. Lewis

Brilliant as usual Sultan. Much thoughtful feedback as well. It was a few years ago that I taught at one of many growing charter schools in the US. One Fetullah Gulen, Turkish imam and self proclaimed scholar,(never finished 5th grade),has put his imprint on American soil in the form of over 155 charter schools. This imam/scholar with his $25 billion war chest claims that america's schools aren't doing a good job with math and science, hence his reason for starting charter schools in the US along with canada, australia, europe and africa...not sure of the total number, but in the hundreds for sure.

This stealth, stinking movement has the blessings of a pope, Clinton, Obama and more traitors then I can list here. We all know that obummer was pushing for charter schools early in his presidency, and so, it comes as no surprise that we are paying for turk teacher's HB 1 visas and often towns/cities provide bonding and other monies for these ersatz schools.

The schools are branded as having superior math/science students who compete in fairs year round. Many know that these kids are not the brains they are cracked up to be, for often teachers do the work that brings the prizes to the students, the vast majority of whom are Turkish muslims.

Although some students are bright, the proof of brainpower or not, is when they enter college and get booted at the end of the 1st year, then the 2nd and 3rd, sometimes ending up at 4 colleges in 4 years! Funnier more than said brilliance in math and science, most of them do not major in math or science..but instead end up majoring in...drum roll..POLY SCI!! Needn't be a brain surgeon to figure that one out.

Gulen's wetdream is to infiltrate all US sectors including education, banking, economy, law..er, sharia maybe?...and most of all he wants to beat the pants off of american business. He helps people set up a business and then they kickback a tithe of sorts. Perhaps 10% for the cause..the cause of course, is Islam.

Gulen sees the return of the Caliph so bad he can smell it, eat it, hear it night and day. One can only hope that his compound in the Poconos makes him so happy that he forgets his megalomaniacal leanings for world power/domination.http://gulencharterschoolsusa.blogspot.com/2012/01/gulen-charter-schools-100-publicly.htmlTo learn how speical interest lobbying for schools affects all of us, this is a Must Read super site.http://gulencharterschools.weebly.com/charter-bond-financing---the-next-subprime-crisis.htmlWhile there be sure and check out the left hand column with much to savor.

As an addendum to the aforesaid post above, I would be remiss in not sharing another fantastic site on these charter schools. I just learned that in 2012-2013 more of these schools will be at the Great Lakes, in fact, on Navy property with an invite for military kids to join.Golly gee, now ain't that a tad cozy. Bring kids into the 'hood' for another Fort Hood on a grander scale?

I fear that not even 1% of Americans are apprised of these stealh schools in their midst nor what it portends. Read in the url below, how americanmonies are being funnelled back to turkey town...hey, what's a little payola, right? Read this and weep!http://www.charterschoolwatchdog.com/

When we ask Muslims to disassociate themselves from violence, we are really asking them to disassociate themselves from Islam. And this they will not [CANNOT for fundamental theological reasons] do."

Very perceptive Daniel.

The Muslim world resolves its internal logical contradictions through self-deception. Just as Islam's pragmatic 'moderates' must do.

"It is the bomber who has the initiative once he chooses to act."

In any conflict, the more ruthless and fanatical the opponent, the more ruthless the reaction must be in order to counter it. To some degree, we become the enemy we fight. There is no other way to prevail.

Approx. 25% of the American AND the Israeli public adamantly support the left. Another 25% voted for Obama and are, in both countries, 'open' to the distortions and lies of the left. We have a 'divided' house. That is why 1-4, 7 & 8 are 'non-starters'.

Arab Muslims in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not amenable to financial incentives... nor would they be admitted by any one of those 56 Muslim countries.

"Stop fighting wars and have the military come home"

Dhimmitude is the only way to stop fighting wars. In WWII, the German Blitzkrieg proved and the French learned, that no 'Maginot Line' can protect one from the "barbarian at the gates".

The choice is fight him on his ground or yours...because fight him we must, they will have it no other way.

Then there is the less pressing but no less important existential fact, that America retreating to its borders lays open the rest of the world to Russian and Chinese conquest, which would, at some point surely occur, makes retreat a prescription for eventual defeat.

PerceiverThe description of Islam is that of undisciplined primitive barbarism. It responds to immediate benefits or consequences and rarely to those of the future. The perfect example is the dysfunctional state of "Arab Spring." Negotiating mandates an awareness that the civilized are dealing with uncivilized, undisciplined, barbaric "rats" and that until "rats" can first convincingly demonstrate they can act like people (so far unlikely) there can be no meaningful bargain.

We have a major problem. We have absolutely NO money to fight wars with. Economic experts say that we are going to have a Depression greater than the Great Depression.

I don't believe in dhimmitude! What have we achieved in Iraq? A secular government has been replaced with sharia law, courtesy of the U.S. Afghanistan now also has sharia law government.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, UK and US military fight under rotten ROE (Rules of Engagement) where the lives of Muslim terrorists are considered more valuable than the lives of our military. Our military are being forced to die for Islam.

Iraq, after our intervention has become an extremely dangerous place for Christians. Huge numbers have fled for their lives. So what have we achieved?

Secondly, with no mention of Ms. Irshad Manji and or Mr. Tarek Fatah and the reformation movement that has been happening within Islam for quite some time now, your point of view is shortsided. Yes, moderate and extreme Muslims are not helping at all. However, there is a HUGE reformation going on and I'd like you to report to the good people who read your blog about this . . . www.irshadmanji.com

I noticed someone mentioned 'Sufi' - they are quite often the 'face' of the Muslim Brotherhood in our Interfaith Dialogs and wage jihad against us via the word/pen and their wealth. And I am sure in other ways too such as acting the victim, etc.

You have put into words something I've been thinking for a very long time. Namely, that our attempts at appeasement have instead created a situation in which the solution will have to be extremely bloody. Because the only win for us is to shift the grounds of appeasement to make them worry about appeasing us: and the only way to do that is to kill enough of them, with enough lack of regard for collateral damage, that they understand that we are willing to keep on killing them until either the survivors surrender, or there are no more Muslims to kill.

The politicians are not really appeasing Islam, they are financing it with our money.

The real use of appeasement is on us who object to this financial gifting of the West to Islam, and they speak soothingly to us while we get assaulted.It loks like appeasement but it is a prearranged bargain to take our resources and the appeasement language is used to attempt to hide it from us.

Fortunately it is ever the Children of Chamberlain, the idiots that want to wear the White Poppy instead of the red one, who think wearing the red poppy glorified war, who will prevent the West from doing what works.

Peaceniks from the Raging Grannys to random college kids at Occupy, do not fathom the concept that there are those who will never give up their tendency for war, and that "appeasement" cannot solve the problem they present. They present "diplomacy" as the "more evolved" solution, but all they are proving is, in a battle of who's more "highly evolved", the primitives will win. Every time.

Thanks for that, Linda, freedom is really what it's all about. As a (hypothetically) free - born Englishman I thought that I had certain rights. Now it appears that our freedoms have been confused with democracy, is that why we are now attempting to impose democracy on people who don't want it? Our freedoms are being eroded in all of this appeasement. The people whom we import have no worries about OUR freedoms.

B R I L L A N T.You could extend the analogy of the rat training the psychiatrist to ever failedLiberal program from appeasing black dysfunction in the inner cities to trying to be liked via mass immigration from the Third World

Let me tell you what truly angers Muslims: They 'remember' when they were winning for 300 years straight. Then the West began the Crusades.

Operating at the end of an impressive logistical network, the West was able to to strike in the heart of the Islamic world while Islam could only gnosh heavily on the edge of the West

When the Crusades ended, the Islamic state in what would be Spain was druievn out. Again, another insult to their always winning story.

Then, as Europe grew stronger, their own sea was taken bit by bit from them, eventually only controlling the far east end and the south shores. And even then, only marginally. And then, eventually, the Europeans took those

Then the greatest Islamic state of all, the Turkish Empire, conqueror of Christendom's greatest city, Constantinople, fell. And was replaced by a secular state

Then Israel

It galls them to know that, despite all their warrior prowess, all their martial will, they cannot defeat the West militarily. We operate freely in their lands, their skies and their waters, striking at will. They get occasional lucky stupid blows against us but our wrath is unceasing

So they cannot win

Not on the battlefield

But they know they can win in our courts, in our streets, in our hearts

We are not conquerors in the West. We haven't the heart of the moral impetus to be any more. We wish to live in peace and learn to accept our differences. We have Rule of Law, a sense of fairness and a fair degree of guilt from when we were

Islam has no such conscience - they still ARE conquerors

There has been no end to their great crusade to bring the world under their rule. Merely frustrating and shameful lapses. And the shame is not on them for being lax, it is on us for resisting